So, has anyone else been unimpressed with the general response to this relatively minor snowstorm we had over the weekend? I don’t think anyone got towed in Boston, and they barely plowed before the freezing rain froze it all.

__________________
The Goal of Mass Transit should be to get you from Bed to Boss to Bar and back again.

There is a lot about how our infrastructure works that I'm really unsure about. Is this a combined sewer overflow? If it's not a CSO was there no way to route this to Deer Island? Is Deer Island at max capacity (in terms if new hook ups)? Is this a new additional outflow or a replacement for an existing one?

There is a lot about how our infrastructure works that I'm really unsure about. Is this a combined sewer overflow? If it's not a CSO was there no way to route this to Deer Island? Is Deer Island at max capacity (in terms if new hook ups)? Is this a new additional outflow or a replacement for an existing one?

No, just new stormwater drainage improvements (no sewage). Here is a page with a bit more inforrmation.

I'm assuming (hoping) that this is related to the type 10/"Green Line Transformation" project that the capital group is working on because it wouldn't make any sense to replace all the track again...

It's just cycled track renewal, which hasn't been done at any comprehensive level in the Central Subway in about 20 years and is now getting overdue. The signal replacement is likewise just cycled renewal...this time replacing end-of-life copper cabling with consolidated fiber optic and replacing the incandescent signal lights with high-visibility LED heads.

GLT isn't even published as a study yet. The only relevance this current work has for the future is that the fiber optic changeouts adds enough data bandwidth to the signal transmission that they can later adopt higher-tech signaling post-GLT when they decide which next-gen system they want to use.

I was under the impression that some pretty major infrastructure changes with respect to turning radiuses and tracks etc to support type 10s, but I could be entirely mistaken.

Those changes haven't been itemized yet. It's not possible to draft a vehicle specs sheet for what a Type 10 can and cannot do until GLT publishes the work from the field surveys and ballparks costs of the mods. That field work is all ongoing. There's nothing actionable to work with until they publish the comprehensive GLT results and resulting recommendations. That's still a long ways off.

In the meantime, the rail they replaced in the subway from about 1998-2000 to enable rollout of the finicky Type 8's is getting pretty worn out. Waiting any longer on the cycled replacement is going to mean increasing derailments with all the thousands of axles that run over every single inch of that revenue track per day. So they're rolling up a bunch of miscellaneous maintenance chores in a wad and advertising it all as a single project to get that and other stuff like the end-of-life signal cable replacement done in a package.

I just want to post about how useless it is to have Logan Airport 3 miles away from Downtown yet it takes just as long as it would take a person to drive from SeaTac to Downtown Seattle or SFO to Downtown San Francisco.

I just want to post about how useless it is to have Logan Airport 3 miles away from Downtown yet it takes just as long as it would take a person to drive from SeaTac to Downtown Seattle or SFO to Downtown San Francisco.

I'm not examining all the data I should exam before I ask this... But are you comparing travel time for 5:30 PM weekday Boston versus 2:30 PM weekday San Francisco and Seattle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BussesAin'tTrains

Yeah, factor for timezones and check the west coast again at 8:30pm EST.

Not to add insult to injury, but it looks like your origin and destination points aren’t apples to apples. You made Downtown the Boston destination, but the airports are the destinations in your SeaTac/SFO example.

Also, I wonder how the journey times vary for alternative transit modes. A blue line journey from Airport to Government Center at rush hour couldn’t take more than 12-15 minutes. I recall that journey taking me almost an hour in SF.

I'm not examining all the data I should exam before I ask this... But are you comparing travel time for 5:30 PM weekday Boston versus 2:30 PM weekday San Francisco and Seattle?

The screenshot I took doesn't adjust but I did run the map with the timezone adjusted and the travel time was about 5 minutes longer and still shorter in terms of miles per minute.

Part of this I assume is that having an airport outside the most congested areas in the city means that airport traffic does not contribute to downtown traffic (i.e. someone from a Seattle suburb going to Sea-Tac would not need to drive through downtown to reach the airport). Perhaps putting an airport right next to Downtown may not be the most efficient idea after all. Unfortunately the location of Logan, built on the most Eastern portion of the city means that all airport traffic West and South of Boston will have to funnel through Downtown.

Boston would do better having an airport west of the city so that none of the airport traffic coming from or going to the surrounding suburbs have to drive through the city to reach it.

I just want to post about how useless it is to have Logan Airport 3 miles away from Downtown yet it takes just as long as it would take a person to drive from SeaTac to Downtown Seattle or SFO to Downtown San Francisco.

The screenshot I took doesn't adjust but I did run the map with the timezone adjusted and the travel time was about 5 minutes longer and still shorter in terms of miles per minute.

Part of this I assume is that having an airport outside the most congested areas in the city means that airport traffic does not contribute to downtown traffic (i.e. someone from a Seattle suburb going to Sea-Tac would not need to drive through downtown to reach the airport). Perhaps putting an airport right next to Downtown may not be the most efficient idea after all. Unfortunately the location of Logan, built on the most Eastern portion of the city means that all airport traffic West and South of Boston will have to funnel through Downtown.

Boston would do better having an airport west of the city so that none of the airport traffic coming from or going to the surrounding suburbs have to drive through the city to reach it.

Boston is a bit over 700 thousand people in 2019, the metro area is what 4.5 million people? The airport serves the region and metro area. All 4.5 million people plus even more from further out have to go through downtown Boston plus cross a harbor to get to the airport. Hanscom off of i95 would have made much more sense if that plan for relocation had went through. I95 is the major artery for the region, connect it with a subway line, done. Logan is really not that beneficial being where it is because of the massive choke point especially being on the other side of the harbor. Its probably too late now, but I think this was a massive oversight due to traffic and stymieing construction forever. East Boston also could have been connected with a bridge allowing pedestrian/bike access w/o Logan as well.

Tbh it could still be economically viable, Hanscom already exists it would just need expansion, but the value of that Logan Airport land would be multiple multiple billions in development. Logan is maxed for expansion which is a hinderance to the region, maybe this plan should be revived? It would allow brand new terminals which LAX, Laguardia, JFK, are all doing anyways.

Norwood may be an ever better location, its also off of 95, more within the Boston area and has tonssss of room for expansion + no millitary base, and a commuter rail line that is just past a part that is already slated to be converted to orange. Plus part of rejection of the Hanscom expansion was outrage by the “rich people towns” over more overflights. Norwood already has 2 runways, with tons of room, Logan has 6, Londons Heathrow fits in more flights than Logan on its 2 runways.

Heres an article which actually describes how the commuter rail is actually the best option for airport service. Plus especially with NSRL that gives the entire region access to the airport. Either way this would mean a direct connection from the airport to south station. Norwood has Amtrak AND Commuter rail, the more I look into this the more it looks like a no brainer. With many airports building brand new terminals, when that decision comes up for Boston I think relocation needs to be on the table as well. A replacement would have to be close to the city, but also serve the multi millions of the metro, I think metro west is the answer.

Look at the immense amount of housing, expansion area the city would have, all with 0 filling in the harbor. We could double the size of the city, ease airport congestion, huge influx of cash which could go towards transit, solve housing, height restrictions...etc. Relocation may be THE future of this city imo.